Wikipedia talk:Featured lists

Categorisation

Moved to User talk:Crisco 1492

FLs for television seasons

During the FLRC for 30 Rock season 1, the topic of how articles for TV seasons should be listed came up. There are currently 79 FLs for individual TV seasons, including this example. However, these lists tend to be older and newer season articles seem to go through GAN/FAC instead (I currently count nine FAs and ~130 GAs). For the FLRC, I thought the distinction was relevant because the FL works reasonably well in its current form as a list of episodes from that season, but not as well as an article about the season, if that distinction is clear. As far as I know, there is no formal consensus on how season articles should be promoted, so I was wondering if (a) we should make the consensus clear on this topic and (b) we should retroactively apply those standards to current FLs. Currently, I'm just curious about feedback from the FL side; obviously a full discussion would need to include other WikiProjects. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I fully believe that any season articles should go through the GAN/FAC process rather than that at FLC. Most television series already have a specific page for a list of their episodes (List of 30 Rock episodes in this case) and it seems to me that season articles expand beyond just a list. I've honestly never considered season articles a list because it would be pointless to have two lists covering the same topic. As for those that are already FL's, yes, they should probably be removed, and if they're still of the standard we expect these days they can go to FA instead.

I added a {{please see}} message to the talk pages of MOS:TV and WP:TV. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: Just to clarify, when you said go to FL, did you mean go to GAN/FAC instead?

I wonder if automatically removing these lists is the correct approach – many of them are still solid, and re-reviewing all of them may be an unnecessary timesink. If I had my way, I'd convert them all to GAs and let them work up to FA or down to delisting from there (FA standards are typically higher than FL so GA seems like a safer option). But I know that has its own issues. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I did, thanks for asking. Ive correcred it in my message. I would be perfectly fine with your suggestion as well, my main point was that these types of articles should not be classified as lists/go througg the FL process/or be listed as a FL, and was nore that those that are currently listed should be delat with somehow. That said, I'd have no issue with a GA conversion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I say skip the side discussions, start one at a central place, then leave notices to both projects. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I left notifications at WT:GA and WT:FA to go with TheDoctorWho's notifications. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

While I see the argument that something like 30 Rock season 1 is an article which includes a list of episodes, at least some of the TV season FLs definitely are lists rather than articles: see e.g. List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes or One Piece season 5.
If I saw either of those at GAN I would advise the nominator to submit them at FLC instead... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue at hand is that some editors think articles like One Piece season 5, despite currently being structured as a list, should be structured as an article with more context (production, reception, etc.). In other words, a season article that looks like a list should be expanded instead of submitted to FLC. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I think "season" articles should go the GAN/FAC route. If there is an article that is just largely an episode table (like One Piece season 5 Caeciliusinhorto noted above), perhaps that article shouldn't be called a "season" article and that should be reevaluated. As RunningTiger pointed out, the expectations of a season article within the TV project as largely changed, I believe, from some of those initial nominated ones such as 30 Rock, and the expectation is it to have a good amount of prose content amongst the episode table; it shouldn't simply be that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

A season article is not a list. It's an article that its scope is the entire production and release (and everything that goes before and after) of a season. It also includes a list of episodes from that season. An article like One Piece season 5 is not a FL, but a C class article at best. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

So judging from the replies here, I think the consensus is that TV seasons should be promoted as articles instead of lists. The question then is should the current FLs be demoted? That would almost certainly overwhelm WP:FLRC if it was done all at once. Similarly, nominating all of the current FLs at GAN would overwhelm that board. Maybe we could slowly nominate the season FLs at GAN a handful at a time, and if they don't pass there, a FLRC could be started. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I do fear that one issue which may arise from sending these to GAN/FAC may be lack of participation in that process. I don't know how many of the initial FLC nominators for these season articles are still active. While I do feel strongly that they shouldn't be FL's, I don't personally have the time or interest in overseeing GAN/FAC's for all of them. Taking the 30 Rock example for a moment, that nominator hasn't been active in nearly a decade and a half, while the One Piece nominator hasn't been active in 9 years. I assume we would need to find editors who would be willing to take on that process for specific articles? TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I could take on some of the work; I was thinking about going through the current FLs and seeing which ones would be good GANs, as well as which ones would probably be quick fails and should go to FLRC instead. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Following up on my previous note, I've made a list of season FLs to start tracking which ones may be good fits for new nominations at GAN. In general, I'm hoping to work with the existing nominators on this, though I can take on a few myself. I plan to start with the most recent nominations (since the nominators are more likely to be active now) and shorter seasons (since their list aspects are downplayed). RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

One quick question

Are dynamic lists eligible to be a featured list? I'm just asking as I'm currently working on a draft on Tropical cyclones in Russia, which is a dynamic list. Tavantius (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tavantius: They are, yes. We have many, such as List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. --PresN 15:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Harry Kane

I believe the feature list status of this article needs to be addressed, it was promoted when each goal was cited by BBC Sport. [1] However since this old edit by Mattythewhite I would fail any featured listing status. I was pretty clear in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international goals scored by Harry Kane/archive1. Can we demote the article until addressed? I am seriously concerned by this issue, as soccerway does not discuss goals. Govvy (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

BBC Sport and Soccerway are both reliable sources so either *should* be fine. However, after BBC Sport recently revamped the format of their online match reports, some data including goal times no longer appear. For example, see their report for France v England on 13 June 2017 in which Kane scored. I would argue therefore that Soccerway is more appropriate. Whether they "discuss" the goals is immaterial; this is a list, after all, not an article which provides detailed descriptions of Kane's goals. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:WAWARDS are back

Letting any watcher or regulars of Featured lists that the W Awards are back up and running since it's long sleep of 10 years. It'd be helpful if you'd like to become a reviewer or nominate people who you think fit the criteria in any of the awards (Bronze, Silver, Golden, Platinum) and give any suggestions on awards or changes that you think should happen in the talk page! Thanks, W Award Coordinator Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to Refine WP:FLCR #6

WP:FLCR #6 currently states: Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.

I propose changing it to: Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars, community discussions (such as WP:AFD, WP:RM or WP:RFC) and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.

I think this clarifies existing expectations: that the article should be pretty much settled when brought to WP:FLC, unless something comes up in the review process. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

During FLC, we may note ongoing discussions and choose to wait on the outcome to see if it affects how the list meets other criteria, but in the long term after a successful nomination, there's nothing inherently wrong with a discussion – it's a core part of the editing process. I'm concerned this would imply that FLs should not form the basis of discussions, which I feel is inappropriate for FLCR to dictate. (I could also see this getting twisted around – say, to imply a FL should not be eligible for AFD – but that may just be me.) If a discussion significantly changes the list (e.g., by merging content or changing the selection criteria), then it could just be reconsidered via WP:FLRC. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, FLCR isn't just "these are the criteria to meet to nominate something for FLC", it's "these are the criteria to meet to be an FL", so saying that something no longer meets the criteria to be an FL just because someone wants to move the page or it's part of an RFC isn't right. It feels more correct for something about this to be in the box at the top of WP:FLC, if anywhere. --PresN 23:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we could change the first bullet on the nomination procedure at FLC to: 1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. It is recommended that the list have no other open discussions. (bold = new text) RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

PresN, your comment that it's "these are the criteria to meet to be an FL", so saying that something no longer meets the criteria to be an FL just because someone wants to move the page or it's part of an RFC isn't right doesn't line up with the current wording of the criteria, nor its actual purpose. The current wording of the criteria state that the article shouldn't be the subject of an editing war. Does that mean I should send FLs to WP:FLRC every time an edit war starts? Obviously not. The purpose of the criteria are meant for reviewers to use while reviewing the lists. Obviously, #6 is stating that you shouldn't nominate an article that isn't currently stable, not that an FL should be removed because it has become unstable. I am merely pointing out that you shouldn't nominate an article undergoing a community discussion. It is giving a broader set of examples, not just an edit war (how many times have you actually seen a list nominated during an edit war?). I will also note that the wording of the criteria regarding discussions that stem from the WP:FLC review process can still continue.

RunningTiger123, I am fine with that addition. I think my main point is that "stability" should be broader than just edit wars. Generally things should be resolved before nominating, notwithstanding things that come up during the FLC process. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I looked back to see where this came from and see if there was any justification for the wording. Here's how WP:FACR #1e (essentially the same as FLCR #6) came to be:

• The very first version of FACR (from April 2004) stated a featured article should have "no ongoing edit wars".
• By January 2005, stability was an explicit requirement.
• The "no edit war" item was added back by September 2005.
• By August 2006, the wording was pretty close to today's wording.

Turns out most of this was done without discussion so it was kind of a dead end; I'm just leaving this now for anyone who's curious (at least, I thought it was interesting). RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Added RunningTiger123's proposed wording change to the FLC instructions. --PresN 16:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)